Summary

This study had a variety of aims: (1) to assess the needs
of violent crime victims, (2) to document the services that were
available to violent crime victims in the San Diego region, (3) to
assess the level of service utilization by different segments of the
population, (4) to determine how individuals cope with victimization
and how coping ability varies as a function of victim and crime
characteristics, (5) to document the set of factors related to
satisfaction with the criminal justice system, (6) to recommend
improvements in the delivery of services to victims, and (7) to
identify issues for future research. Data were collected using five
different survey instruments. The first survey was sent to over 3,000
violent crime victims over the age of 16 and to approximately 60
homicide witnesses and survivors in the San Diego region (Part 1,
Initial Victims' Survey Data). Of the 718 victims who returned the
initial survey, 330 victims were recontacted six months later (Part 2,
Follow-Up Victims' Survey Data). Respondents in Part 1 were asked what
type of violent crime occurred, whether they sustained injury, whether
they received medical treatment, what the nature of their relationship
to the suspect was, and if the suspect had been arrested. Respondents
for both Parts 1 and 2 were asked which service providers, if any,
contacted them at the time of the incident or afterwards. Respondents
were also asked what type of services they needed and received at the
time of the incident or afterwards. Respondents in Part 2 rated the
overall service and helpfulness of the information received at the
time of the incident and after, and their level of satisfaction
regarding contact with the police, prosecutor, and judge handling
their case. Respondents in Part 2 were also asked what sort of
financial loss resulted from the incident, and whether federal, state,
local, or private agencies provided financial assistance to
them. Finally, respondents in Part 1 and Part 2 were asked about the
physical and psychological effects of their victimization. Demographic
variables for Part 1 and Part 2 include the marital status, employment
status, and type of job of each violent crime
victim/witness/survivor. Part 1 also includes the race, sex, and
highest level of education of each respondent. Police and court case
files were reviewed six months after the incident occurred for each
initial sample case. Data regarding victim and incident
characteristics were collected from original arrest reports, jail
booking screens, and court dockets (Part 3, Tracking Data). The
variables for Part 3 include the total number of victims, survivors,
and witnesses of violent crimes, place of attack, evidence collected,
and which service providers were at the scene of the crime. Part 3
also includes a detailed list of the services provided to the
victim/witness/survivor at the scene of the crime and after. These
services included counseling, explanation of medical and police
procedures, self-defense and crime prevention classes, food, clothing,
psychological/psychiatric services, and help with court
processes. Additional Part 3 variables cover circumstances of the
incident, initial custody status of suspects, involvement of victims
and witnesses at hearings, and case outcome, including disposition and
sentencing. The race, sex, and age of each victim/witness/survivor are
also recorded in Part 3 along with the same demographics for each
suspect. Data for Part 4, Intervention Programs Survey Data, were
gathered using a third survey, which was distributed to members of the
three following intervention programs: (1) the San Diego Crisis
Intervention Team, (2) the EYE Counseling and Crisis Services, Crisis
and Advocacy Team, and (3) the District Attorney's Victim-Witness
Assistance Program. A modified version of the survey with a subset of
the original questions was administered one year later to members of
the San Diego Crisis Intervention Team (Part 5, Crisis Intervention
Team Survey Data) and to the EYE Counseling and Crisis Services,
Crisis and Advocacy Team (Part 6, EYE Crisis and Advocacy Team Survey
Data). The survey questions for Parts 4-6 asked each respondent to
provide their reasons for becoming involved with the program, the
goals of the program, responsibilities of the staff or volunteers, the
types of referral services their agency provided, the number of hours
of training required, and the topics covered in the
training. Respondents for Parts 4-6 were further asked about the
specific types of services they provided to
victims/witnesses/survivors. Part 4 also contains a series of
variables regarding coordination efforts, problems, and resolutions
encountered when dealing with other intervention agencies and law
enforcement agencies. Demographic variables for Parts 4-6 include the
ethnicity, age, gender, and highest level of education of each
respondent, and whether the respondent was a staff member of the
agency or volunteer. The fourth survey was mailed to 53 referral
agencies used by police and crisis interventionists (Part 7, Service
Provider Survey Data). Part 7 contains the same series of variables as
Part 4 on dealing with other intervention and law enforcement
agencies. Respondents in Part 7 were further asked to describe the
type of victims/witnesses/survivors to whom they provided service
(e.g., domestic violence victims, homicide witnesses, or suicide
survivors) and to rate their level of satisfaction with referral
procedures provided by law enforcement officers, hospitals,
paramedics, religious groups, the San Diego Crisis Intervention Team,
the EYE Crisis Team, and the District Attorney's Victim/Witness
Program. Part 7 also includes the hours of operation for each service
provider organization, as well as which California counties they
serviced. Finally, respondents in Part 7 were given a list of services
and asked if they provided any of those services to
victims/witnesses/survivors. Services unique to this list included job
placement assistance, public awareness campaigns, accompaniment to
court, support groups, and advocacy with outside agencies (e.g.,
employers or creditors). Demographic variables for Part 7 include the
ethnicity, age, and gender of each respondent. The last survey was
distributed to over 1,000 law enforcement officers from the Escondido,
San Diego, and Vista sheriff's agencies (Part 8, Law Enforcement
Survey Data). Respondents in Part 8 were surveyed to determine their
familiarity with intervention programs, how they learned about the
program, the extent to which they used or referred others to
intervention services, appropriate circumstances for calling or not
calling in interventionists, their opinions regarding various
intervention programs, their interactions with interventionists at
crime scenes, and suggestions for improving delivery of services to
victims. Demographic variables for Part 8 include the rank and agency
of each law enforcement respondent.

Citation

Rienick, Cynthia, Hoctor Mulmat, Darlanne, and Pennell, Susan. Effectiveness of Alternative Victim Assistance Service Delivery Models in the San Diego Region, 1993-1994. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2006-03-30. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02789.v1

Geographic Coverage

Time Period(s)

1993 -- 1994

Data Collection Notes

The user guide, codebooks, and data collection
instruments are provided as Portable Document Format (PDF) files. The
PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be
accessed using PDF reader software, such as the Adobe Acrobat
Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat Reader is
provided through the ICPSR Website on the Internet.

Study Purpose

Victimization often steals one's sense of
personal control, thereby producing psychological repercussions that
exacerbate feelings of fear and vulnerability. Victims of violent
crime, moreover, become dissatisfied and resentful of the criminal
justice system, plagued by feelings of shame and guilt, and many times
transfer a sense of disorder, powerlessness, and fear to other areas
in their life. Previous research has pointed out that not all victims
cope with victimization equally. While studies have examined how
victimization changes an individual's life, very little was known
about how well the needs of these victims were actually being
met. This study sought to: (1) assess the needs of violent crime
victims, (2) document the services that were available to violent
crime victims in the San Diego region, (3) assess the level of service
utilization by different segments of the population, (4) determine how
individuals cope with victimization and how coping ability varies as a
function of victim and crime characteristics, (5) document the set of
factors related to satisfaction with the criminal justice system, (6)
recommend improvements in the delivery of services to victims, and (7)
identify issues for future research.

Study Design

Data were collected using five different surveys
and official records. The first survey was sent to over 3,000 violent
crime victims over the age of 16 in the San Diego region (Part 1,
Initial Victims' Survey Data). Over 60 homicide witnesses and
survivors in the city of San Diego were also contacted. English and
Spanish versions of the surveys were mailed four weeks after the
incident and were accompanied by a cover letter from the District
Attorney that explained the purpose of the survey and assured the
victim, witness, or survivor that his or her input was voluntary,
confidential, and anonymous. Follow-up mailings were sent two weeks
after the initial mailing to increase response rates. A section at the
end of the initial victims' survey asked respondents for their
permission to be contacted again in the future for the purpose of
gaining additional input regarding the effects of victimization. Of
the 718 victims who returned the initial survey, 330 victims were
recontacted six months later (Part 2, Follow-Up Victims' Survey
Data). This second survey was administered via telephone interviews or
distributed by mail. The interview included both test and original
questions. Also, some items from the initial survey were repeated to
measure changes in needs, attitudes, coping behavior, and services
received. Specific questions were asked regarding case outcome, and
victim satisfaction with the criminal justice system was explored more
fully compared to the initial survey. Next, police and court case
files were reviewed six months after the incident occurred for each
initial sample case. Data regarding victim and incident
characteristics were collected from original arrest reports, jail
booking screens, and court dockets. The information gathered from
these official records were recorded onto a case tracking form (Part
3, Tracking Data). Data for Part 4, Intervention Programs Survey Data,
were gathered using a third survey, which was distributed to members
of the three following intervention programs: (1) the San Diego Crisis
Intervention Team, (2) the EYE Counseling and Crisis Services, Crisis
and Advocacy Team, and (3) the District Attorney's Victim-Witness
Assistance Program. Due to large staff and volunteer turnover with
intervention programs, a modified version of this survey with a subset
of the original questions was administered one year later to members
of the San Diego Crisis Intervention Team (Part 5, Crisis Intervention
Team Survey Data) and the EYE Crisis and Advocacy Team (Part 6, EYE
Crisis and Advocacy Team Survey Data). When identical questions were
asked, data from the most recent administration of the instrument were
used. Since no direct comparisons to the San Diego Crisis Intervention
Team and the Crisis and Advocacy Team were intended, the members of
the District Attorney's Victim-Witness Assistance Program were only
surveyed once. To determine the variety of services available to
victims in the San Diego region, the fourth survey was mailed to 53
referral agencies used by police and crisis interventionists to
measure the level of satisfaction with referral procedures,
coordination among agencies, extent of duplication of services, type
of services provided to victims, and suggestions for improving service
delivery models (Part 7, Service Provider Survey Data). The last
survey was distributed to over 1,000 law enforcement officers from the
Escondido, San Diego, and Vista sheriff's agencies, who were surveyed
at line-up (Part 8, Law Enforcement Survey Data). Each of these law
enforcement agencies was served by either the Crisis Intervention Team
and/or the EYE Crisis programs.

Sample

Parts 1-3: Not applicable. Parts 4-8: Convenience
sampling.

Universe

Parts 1 and 2: Victims, witnesses, and survivors of
violent crimes in the San Diego region, who were over the age of 16 at
the time of incident. Part 3: Violent crime incidents. Parts 4-6:
Staff and volunteers of crisis intervention programs servicing the San
Diego region. Part 7: Community agencies providing services to violent
crime victims, witnesses, and survivors in the San Diego area. Part 8:
Law enforcement officers servicing Escondido and Vista counties, and
the city of San Diego, California.

Unit(s) of Observation

Parts 1, 2, and 4-8: Individuals. Part 3: Cases.

Data Source

Data Type(s)

survey data, and administrative records data

Description of Variables

Respondents in Part 1 were asked what type of
violent crime occurred, whether they sustained injury, whether they
received medical treatment, what the nature of their relationship to
the suspect was, and if the suspect had been arrested. Respondents for
both Parts 1 and 2 were asked which service providers, if any,
contacted them at the time of the incident or afterwards. Respondents
were also asked what type of services they needed and received at the
time of the incident or afterwards. Respondents in Part 2 rated the
overall service and helpfulness of the information received at the
time of the incident and after, and their level of satisfaction
regarding contact with the police, prosecutor, and judge handling
their case. Respondents in Part 2 were also asked what sort of
financial loss resulted from the incident, and whether federal, state,
local, or private agencies provided financial assistance to
them. Finally, respondents in Part 1 and Part 2 were asked about the
physical and psychological effects of their victimization. Demographic
variables for Part 1 and Part 2 include the marital status, employment
status, and type of job of each violent crime
victim/witness/survivor. Part 1 also includes the race, sex, and
highest level of education of each respondent. The variables for Part
3 include the total number of victims, survivors, and witnesses of
violent crimes, place of attack, evidence collected, and which service
providers were at the scene of the crime. Part 3 also includes a
detailed list of the services provided to the victim/witness/survivor
at the scene of the crime and after. These services included
counseling, explanation of medical and police procedures, self-defense
and crime prevention classes, food, clothing,
psychological/psychiatric services, and help with court
processes. Additional Part 3 variables cover circumstances of the
incidents, initial custody status of suspects, involvement of victims
and witnesses at hearings, and case outcomes, including dispositions
and sentencing. The race, sex, and age of each victim/witness/survivor
are also recorded in Part 3, along with the same demographics for each
suspect. The survey questions for Parts 4-6 asked each respondent to
provide their reasons for becoming involved with the program, the
goals of the program, responsibilities of the staff or volunteer, the
types of referral services their agency provided, the number of hours
of training required, and the topics covered in the
training. Respondents for Parts 4-6 were further asked about the
specific types of services they provided to
victims/witnesses/survivors. Part 4 also contains a series of
variables regarding coordination efforts, problems, and resolutions
encountered when dealing with other intervention agencies and law
enforcement agencies. Demographic variables for Parts 4-6 include the
ethnicity, age, gender, and highest level of education of each
respondent, and whether the respondent was a staff member of the
agency or volunteer. Respondents in Part 7 were further asked to
describe the type of victims/witnesses/survivors to whom they provided
service (e.g., domestic violence victims, homicide witnesses, or
suicide survivors) and to rate their level of satisfaction with
referral procedures provided by law enforcement officers, hospitals,
paramedics, religious groups, the San Diego Crisis Intervention Team,
the EYE Crisis Team, and the District Attorney's Victim/Witness
Program. Part 7 also includes the hours of operation for each service
provider organization, as well as which California counties they
serviced. Finally, respondents in Part 7 were given a list of services
and asked if they provided any of those services to
victims/witnesses/survivors. Services unique to this list included job
placement assistance, public awareness campaigns, accompaniment to
court, support groups, and advocacy with outside agencies (e.g.,
employers or creditors). Demographic variables for Part 7 include the
ethnicity, age, and gender of each respondent. Respondents in Part 8
were surveyed to determine their familiarity with intervention
programs, how they learned about the program, the extent to which they
used or referred others to intervention services, appropriate
circumstances for calling or not calling in interventionists, their
opinions regarding various intervention programs, their interactions
with interventionists at crime scenes, and suggestions for improving
delivery of services to victims. Demographic variables for Part 8
include the rank and agency of each law enforcement respondent.

Response Rates

The response rate for Part 1 was 22 percent. The
response rate for Part 2 is unknown. Part 3: Not applicable. The
response rate is unknown for Parts 4-6. The response rate for Part 7
was 58 percent. The response rate for Part 8 was 49 percent.

Presence of Common Scales

Original Release Date

2000-08-04

Version Date

2006-03-30

Version History

2006-03-30 File UG2789.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads.

2005-11-04 On 2005-03-14 new files were added to one
or more datasets. These files included additional setup files as well
as one or more of the following: SAS program, SAS transport, SPSS portable,
and Stata system files. The metadata record was revised 2005-11-04 to
reflect these additions.

2000-08-04 ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

Standardized missing values.

Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.

Notes

The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public. Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.

The citation of this study may have changed due to the new version control system that has been implemented.